Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI
SpaceKB.com
Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map

Space Forum / Shuttle / April 2004



Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

msnbc (Oberg) -- NASA selects new class of astronauts

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
JimO - 10 Apr 2004 00:46 GMT
msnbc (Oberg) -- NASA selects new class of astronauts
Sources say agency is contacting candidates, but will first post-Columbia
group ever fly on shuttle?
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4704179

MSNBC.COM EXCLUSIVE
By James Oberg, NBC News space analyst
Special to MSNBC
Updated: 7:26 p.m. ET April  09, 2004

   HOUSTON - NASA has completed its selection of the next class of
astronaut candidates, and is now telephoning the selectees to confirm their
interest in moving to Houston, sources familiar with the selection process
have told MSNBC.com.
   NASA spokesman James Hartsfield confirmed Friday that a selection
process was under way but could not provide any specifics about the schedule
for selection or public disclosure.
   Speaking on condition of anonymity, the sources said 14 individuals will
be asked to report to Houston as astronaut candidates in June and begin two
years of formal training at NASA's Johnson Space Center in August.
   The prospective class of 2004 includes two pilots, six mission
specialists, and three educators who will go through mission specialist
training. There also will be three candidates from the Japanese Space
Agency.
Michael Gallagher - 13 Apr 2004 17:17 GMT
> .... but will first post-Columbia group ever fly on shuttle?

If they don't, they'll be the first batch to fly the CEV.  It's not
unprecedented: The first group of Shuttle astronauts, including IIRC
Bob Crippin, included ones who had been trained for MOL.  
jeff findley - 13 Apr 2004 18:32 GMT
> > .... but will first post-Columbia group ever fly on shuttle?
>
> If they don't, they'll be the first batch to fly the CEV.  It's not
> unprecedented: The first group of Shuttle astronauts, including IIRC
> Bob Crippin, included ones who had been trained for MOL.  

Of course, the downside to this is they had to wait a *long* time
before they got a chance to fly.  I wonder if NASA will choose to
focus the training of this new class so they can more easily
transition to the CEV when it becomes available.  I'm guessing not.
They'll want to keep the class busy learning how to do "astronaut
things" and don't really know the details of CEV, but the details of
the shuttle are well known.

Jeff
Signature

Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

Derek Lyons - 13 Apr 2004 19:09 GMT
>They'll want to keep the class busy learning how to do "astronaut
>things" and don't really know the details of CEV, but the details of
>the shuttle are well known.

FWIW the Navy considers basic training on theory/practice/method and
the basics as important as training on specific equipment.  Nukes for
example recieve mostly generic training before reporting to their
first ship.

D.
Signature

Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

jeff findley - 13 Apr 2004 19:55 GMT
> >They'll want to keep the class busy learning how to do "astronaut
> >things" and don't really know the details of CEV, but the details of
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> example recieve mostly generic training before reporting to their
> first ship.

I wonder how well NASA separates basic astronaut training from shuttle
specific training, especially when they've been planning, building,
testing, and flying one vehicle for three decades.

Jeff
Signature

Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

Jorge R. Frank - 14 Apr 2004 02:17 GMT
>> >They'll want to keep the class busy learning how to do "astronaut
>> >things" and don't really know the details of CEV, but the details of
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> specific training, especially when they've been planning, building,
> testing, and flying one vehicle for three decades.

In general, things that are common to both shuttle and ISS are separated
pretty well. EVA training, for example (though it is fairly EMU-specific).
Robotics training has a generic course before one trains on either the SRMS
or the SSRMS. Orbital mechanics is pretty generic, though it is exclusively
taught by shuttle instructors (at least for now). But most other training
is specific to a particular vehicle system or phase of flight, and would be
pretty difficult to make generic.

Signature

JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

jeff findley - 14 Apr 2004 14:22 GMT
> In general, things that are common to both shuttle and ISS are separated
> pretty well. EVA training, for example (though it is fairly EMU-specific).
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> is specific to a particular vehicle system or phase of flight, and would be
> pretty difficult to make generic.

That's along the lines of what I guessed.  So, the new batch of
astronauts will likely end up with quite a bit of shuttle and/or ISS
training, even though they may not fly on either due to lack of
"seats".

Jeff
Signature

Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

Jim Davis - 13 Apr 2004 20:08 GMT
> Nukes for
> example recieve mostly generic training before reporting to their
> first ship.

Things must have *really* changed since I was a nuke (late '70s).

Jim Davis
Derek Lyons - 14 Apr 2004 01:08 GMT
>>Nukes for example recieve mostly generic training before reporting
>>to their first ship.
>
>Things must have *really* changed since I was a nuke (late '70s).

Not at all.  The pipeline is the same as it's always been, general
theory training at nuke school then general practical training at
prototype before reporting to your first ship.  Some may have gotten
lucky and gone to the prototype for their ship's plant, but that was
the exception.  Nukes never had specific schools for specific plants.

D.
Signature

Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

MasterShrink - 14 Apr 2004 07:10 GMT
>Of course, the downside to this is they had to wait a *long* time
>before they got a chance to fly.  I wonder if NASA will choose to
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>things" and don't really know the details of CEV, but the details of
>the shuttle are well known.

This new class will also likely be involved in the development of the CEV. The
last two astronaut classes on 1967 and 1969 (and a few guys from the 1996
group) may have trained heavily on Apollo hardware, but ended up being very
involved in the development of the Shuttle. Bruce McCandless and Story Musgrave
both served on Skylab backup crews but ended up contributing a lot to the
development of Shuttle-era EVA equipment and proceedures. The unflown pilots,
Joe Engle, Bob Crippen (and the rest of the MOL guys) also played roles in the
development of the shuttle.

Provided the CEV gets developed, any pilots at least, who don't get to go up on
the shuttle, will probably get to fly, probably back-seat to a veteran
astronaut on the first CEV flights. The question is how long CEV will take to
develop. STS took so long, that by the time it flew NASA really didn't have
that many veteran astronauts on the payroll.

I wouldn't be surprised if any mission specialists in this group who don't fly
shuttle missions land flights to ISS on Soyuz.

-A.L.
Bruce Sterling Woodcock - 14 Apr 2004 14:42 GMT
What percentage of astronauts get to fly?
I suspect historically it was much higher
than it is today; perhaps someone could
measure the trending average?

Bruce
Jorge R. Frank - 14 Apr 2004 14:40 GMT
> What percentage of astronauts get to fly?
> I suspect historically it was much higher
> than it is today; perhaps someone could
> measure the trending average?

I'd say the opposite; today, just about everyone selected flies at least
once, washouts and resignations before first flight are rare.

Signature

JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Dave Fowler - 14 Apr 2004 14:56 GMT
>From: "Jorge R. Frank" jrfrank@ibm-pc.borg

>I'd say the opposite; today, just about everyone selected flies at least
>once, washouts and resignations before first flight are rare.

This is correct. Excepting people still actively waiting in line for their
first flight, from 1978-1996 (ASCAN classes), only one selected astronaut did
not fly (who died in a plane accident).

The 1998 & 2000 classes and a few from 1996 are still waiting for first flight.
One member of the 1998 class has also died in a plane accident before flying.

From 1959-1969, 13 astronauts did not fly (out of a much smaller number
selected), either due to washouts, or accidental death.

Dave
Stuf4 - 15 Apr 2004 14:38 GMT
From Dave Fowler:
> From 1959-1969, 13 astronauts did not fly (out of a much smaller number
> selected), either due to washouts, or accidental death.

I would use the term "quiting" instead of "washouts".  "Washout"
refers to not meeting a certain standard.  I can't name a single
astronaut who washed out prior to their first flight.  During military
jet pilot training, for instance, a distinction is made between a
student Self Initiated removal from training versus washing out.

One of the unwritten rules of astronaut training seems to be that no
one washes out.  NASA will keep training you until they feel that
you've come up to speed.  (KC Chawla was one example of this.)

~ CT
jeff findley - 15 Apr 2004 15:07 GMT
> From Dave Fowler:
> > From 1959-1969, 13 astronauts did not fly (out of a much smaller number
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> one washes out.  NASA will keep training you until they feel that
> you've come up to speed.  (KC Chawla was one example of this.)

But it's possible that you could end up training forever and not ever
making the grade.  At some point an astronaut in this situation may
"quit", but the reality is that they were a washout.

The fact that NASA does not want to publicly admit that they have
washouts is why they will keep training these people instead of
letting them go.  Heck, you can even send them on trips around the
country talking to kids.  They can be presented as an "astronaut who
hasn't flown".  You just leave out the fact that they will never fly.

Jeff
Signature

Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

Doug... - 15 Apr 2004 15:59 GMT
> > From Dave Fowler:
> > > From 1959-1969, 13 astronauts did not fly (out of a much smaller number
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> country talking to kids.  They can be presented as an "astronaut who
> hasn't flown".  You just leave out the fact that they will never fly.

And there was at least one person you could consider a washout among the
astronaut groups selected in the '60s -- Duane Graveline.  His washout
apparently had nothing to do with his technical or engineering skills,
or his medical skills (he was a physician selected in the 1965
scientist-astronaut group) -- the story I remember is that he had some
"personal issues," which included some problems in re violence against
his wife.  (Though I can't recall where I heard that story.)  That would
be a case of not meeting NASA's *moral* standards for its astronaut
corps...

Brian O'Leary, of the second group of scientist-astronauts, was indeed a
simple case of the guy quitting.

Doug
dvandorn@NOSPAM.mn.rr.com
Dave Fowler - 16 Apr 2004 01:13 GMT
>NASA selects new class of astronauts
>From: Doug... dvandorn@NOSPAM.mn.rr.com

>And there was at least one person you could consider a washout among the
>astronaut groups selected in the '60s -- Duane Graveline.  His washout
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>be a case of not meeting NASA's *moral* standards for its astronaut
>corps...

I know he was in the midst of a messy divorce, however I was also informed he
didn't make it through jet training (which the scientists in those days were
required to do).

Dave
Stuf4 - 16 Apr 2004 07:14 GMT
From Dave Fowler:
<snip>
> I know he was in the midst of a messy divorce, however I was also informed he
> didn't make it through jet training (which the scientists in those days were
> required to do).

"Doc" Graveline's own website, http://www.spacedoc.net/memoirs.html
paints a clear picture as to why he, as was said, "didn't make it
through jet training" (Jack Schmitt was his roommate at UPT, Williams
AFB) -
______

David: "Do you think that NASA over reacted to the announcement of
your impending divorce while you were still active in the astronaut
corps?"

Doc: "No, I had no problem with NASA's reaction. This was their first
publicized divorce of one of their shining knights. Their reaction was
entirely reasonable and even predictable. What else could they do? I
have to admit that when the publicity came out I felt like someone who
had just received a lethal dose of radiation - I knew I was dead but
was just not sure of when it would happen. After five months I
resigned for personal reasons. It was the hardest decision of my life.
The good news is that it directed me into the busy life of a family
doctor for the next twenty-two years where, as observer, I followed
our space program with heavy heart. Subsequently many astronauts have
gone through divorce but I was the first."

David: "Gene Cernan wrote some derogatory remarks pertaining to your
appointment to the astronaut corps in his book "Last Man on the Moon".
What is your rebuttal to his statements?

Doc: "In case some readers may not be able to recall Gene's exact
words concerning me I will quote what is arguably the most offensive
of his several inflammatory remarks:
[Graveline was possibly the worst choice ever in the astronaut
program, the result of the National Academy of Sciences not doing the
in-depth background checks that NASA had always demanded.]
"I'd like to think that Gene knew better than to make that sort of a
statement. Background checks had nothing to do with it. Sometimes
events in our lives just happen beyond our control. I was just about
to leave for flight training. I had no advance warning that this was
going to happen. Fueled by publicity, it suddenly exploded, far beyond
any hopes of being checked or guided. Of course it reflects negatively
on me, yet I am the same man - still the best scientist astronaut NASA
ever had. I deeply envy those fortunate few who manage to play out
their lives with their first loved. It is truly a blessing."

David: "After leaving the astronaut program, what changes did your
life take and how where you able to best deal with them?"

Doc: "Five months after the ruinous publicity and well into the flight
training program I resigned from NASA officially "for personal
reasons" and took up life again with my family. It was a
reconciliation doomed for failure for every time an Apollo mission
occurred I was pulled more deeply into self-doubt and troubled
thoughts. A year passed and finally, like Thoreau, I moved alone into
my little cabin in the woods of northern Vermont and gradually
regained my footing."

______

______

David: "Since your leaving the astronaut corps, did you ever work for
NASA again in any capacity?

Doc: "Yes. During the Four R&D shuttle flights in the early eighties,
I took a six-month leave of absence from my practice in Vermont to
return to NASA as Director of Medical Operations at the request of my
good friend, Doctor Fred Kelly who, as a Pan-Am sub-contractor, had
been running the health center at the Cape for years. Otherwise my
only NASA contact has been as a regular participant in the
Longitudinal Study of Astronaut Health, getting my annual physical
check-up at Johnson Space Center."

______

~ CT
Stuf4 - 16 Apr 2004 04:56 GMT
From Doug Van Dorn:
> jeff.findley@sdrc.com says...
> > >
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> > country talking to kids.  They can be presented as an "astronaut who
> > hasn't flown".  You just leave out the fact that they will never fly.

There are plenty of astronauts who have been shelved as
permanently-unassignable, but all the cases I know of have been
*after* having flown at least once.

> And there was at least one person you could consider a washout among the
> astronaut groups selected in the '60s -- Duane Graveline.  His washout
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> be a case of not meeting NASA's *moral* standards for its astronaut
> corps...

If he got canned because of problems with his own character, then I
would agree.  If it was because of problems with the character of the
woman he married, then I wouldn't necessarily fault him for that.

My read from the bits I've gathered is that it was more a matter of
NASA not wanting to look bad with the situation he was going through.

> Brian O'Leary, of the second group of scientist-astronauts, was indeed a
> simple case of the guy quitting.

It's been years since I've read his "ex-astronaut" book, but I seem to
remember him telling how terrified he was of flying T-37s (Reese AFB?)
and that he quit prior to soloing out.

~ CT
Terrell Miller - 17 Apr 2004 16:06 GMT
> > Brian O'Leary, of the second group of scientist-astronauts, was indeed a
> > simple case of the guy quitting.
>
> It's been years since I've read his "ex-astronaut" book, but I seem to
> remember him telling how terrified he was of flying T-37s (Reese AFB?)
> and that he quit prior to soloing out.

well, he never actually came right out and admitted he was scared to
fly...but he went on and on and *on* about how he thought it was ridiculous
to accept a one-in-ten chance of getting killed in a jet aircraft when he
was supposed to be training to fly a *spacecraft*.

Apparently it never occurred to him that if he couldn't handle a relatively
simple jet trainer, no way in hell would he ever be able to master an Apollo
spacecraft, let alone *two* completely independent spacecraft (CSM and LM).

Signature

Terrell Miller
millerto@bellsouth.net

"It's one thing to burn down the sh.t house and another thing entirely to
install plumbing"
-PJ O'Rourke

Derek Lyons - 20 Apr 2004 23:37 GMT
>Apparently it never occurred to him that if he couldn't handle a relatively
>simple jet trainer, no way in hell would he ever be able to master an Apollo
>spacecraft, let alone *two* completely independent spacecraft (CSM and LM).

Kinda like what one of my DI's in boot camp told me;  "You know why we
worry now about how you fold your clothes and stow your locker?  If
you can't master these simple tasks and the discipline which comes
with them, how is the Navy supposed to trust you with multi-million
pieces of equipment?"

D.
Signature

Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

Terrell Miller - 21 Apr 2004 03:45 GMT
> >Apparently it never occurred to him that if he couldn't handle a relatively
> >simple jet trainer, no way in hell would he ever be able to master an Apollo
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> with them, how is the Navy supposed to trust you with multi-million
> pieces of equipment?"

same reason why all the whining about harassment in basic training really
galls me. How the hell do those people think they'll ever handle combat if
they can't take a little fraternal razzing?

Signature

Terrell Miller
millerto@bellsouth.net

"It's one thing to burn down the sh.t house and another thing entirely to
install plumbing"
-PJ O'Rourke

MasterShrink - 20 Apr 2004 17:04 GMT
>I would use the term "quiting" instead of "washouts".  "Washout"
>refers to not meeting a certain standard.  I can't name a single
>astronaut who washed out prior to their first flight.  During military
>jet pilot training, for instance, a distinction is made between a
>student Self Initiated removal from training versus washing out.

I recall reading in "Deke!" one of the 1967 guys, Tony Llewellyn, pretty much
washed out. At least that's the way Deke made it sound, stating "he couldn't
hack jets" in flight training.

-A.L.
Stuf4 - 21 Apr 2004 04:54 GMT
From A.L. (MasterShrink):
> >I would use the term "quiting" instead of "washouts".  "Washout"
> >refers to not meeting a certain standard.  I can't name a single
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> washed out. At least that's the way Deke made it sound, stating "he couldn't
> hack jets" in flight training.

Good info.

Something curious about the way students are washed out of pilot
training is that it happens in waves.  When the military has a pilot
shortage, higher percentages of students make it through.  Then there
are the cases were *much higher* percentages make it through, as with
the case of certain Air National Guard students and especially foreign
students.  It's clear to me that there's plenty of flex in pilot
training standards, particularly when outside agencies are paying the
bill.

I expect that NASA fit into this category.  Not just from a monetary
standpoint, but because of the potential embarrassment to NASA of one
of their elite selectees not making the cut.

And NASA students were not expected to actually do hands-on piloting
of spacecraft, so that could have been used as one more justification
for the Air Force to push marginal students through undergraduate
pilot training.

So what are we to make of the statement that Tony Llewellyn "couldn't
hack jets"?  I agree that it seems to say that the Air Force dropped
the ax.  But that statement could also be said of someone who decided
to call it quits.  I'd be curious to learn whether it was recorded as
a self-initiated removal from training or whether deficiency was
cited.

~ CT
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.